Don't believe everything you think

[NonEntity]

(10-25-2011 07:16 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  

(10-25-2011 06:31 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  I tried to rewrite it in E-prime but found I couldn't figure out how.
Every weigh I tride to right it had sum form of tubey in it!
- NonE

I'm not sure what "it" (to rewrite) was for you, but regardless perhaps this will aide a bit? (or not so much? iAi --2me)

It:

Kel Wrote:Found this to be interesting.

Okay, smarty pants. Let's see you put that in E-prime.

- NonE(prime)

[zonsb]

I think this is interesting.

--

[NonEntity]

(10-26-2011 05:31 AM)zonsb Wrote:  I think this is interesting.

--

(emphasis mine)

Unless I'm mistaken, "is" is part of the tubey or notubey problem, thus your solution fails. I had the same problem. Someone else? ;-)

- NonE

[zonsb]

(10-26-2011 09:01 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(10-26-2011 05:31 AM)zonsb Wrote:  I think this is interesting.

--

(emphasis mine)

Unless I'm mistaken, "is" is part of the tubey or notubey problem, thus your solution fails. I had the same problem. Someone else? ;-)

- NonE

I think it an interesting website. ??

--

[NonEntity]

(10-26-2011 10:00 AM)zonsb Wrote:  

(10-26-2011 09:01 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(10-26-2011 05:31 AM)zonsb Wrote:  I think this is interesting.

--

(emphasis mine)

Unless I'm mistaken, "is" is part of the tubey or notubey problem, thus your solution fails. I had the same problem. Someone else? ;-)

- NonE

I think it an interesting website. ??

--

I think the "is" is implied in your sentence above.

Perhaps, "My mind is stimulated by this website." Oooops. Damned "IS!"

"This website stimulates my mind." Howzat? That talks about what happens, not what "is."

E-prime really "IS" a fascinating way to examine our language and how it shapes our view of reality.

- NonE

[Kel]

The video linked below appears both relevant and interesting by my personal judgement.

The video linked below appears well placed when measured by relevance in accordance of subject matter.


Yay? Nay?

[eye2i2hear]

(10-25-2011 07:31 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  It:

Kel Wrote:Found this to be interesting.

Okay, smarty pants. Let's see you put that in E-prime.
- NonE(prime)

Well, it seems to me, first, we're still experiencing a failure to communicate. What is "that" here?

And as the Smarty Pants, let me attempt to head that off: "that", for me, equals what Kel wishes --sincerely, genuinely --as opposed to flippantly, conveniently (selfishly?)-- to convey or express. Thus, from my perspective, it is less about "put that/that in E-Prime" and more about asking if the point is expressed as accurately, and factually as it might be.

I don't see E-Prime as seeking to eliminate each and every instance of "to be" forms, but rather, to reduce or eliminate their being used with subjective points. And perhaps even considering the degree of the subjectivity as how strongly one seeks to not use "to be" forms. [btw, I'd suggest that the key culprit is the form "is" --where interestingly, according to several sources, the word "is" is number 7 on the Top Ten Most Used English words; as far as culprits, "are" might be next?]

When taking "it"/"that" as expressed by Kel here, I don't find it to decrease or devalue the objective of E-P that much at all (tho I do see the caution expressed by the author of my earlier excerpted quote regarding the word "found"). One aspect of this for me, is indeed, that a valuable part of what E-Prime-ing is about, is reducing subjective aspects of life being conveyed and communicated as being objective. Thus, the more direct ignoring of E-Prime (as one's value) here was might be to have said: "This is interesting." When the closer reality is (factually, and taking him at his word), it was interesting to Kel, and he hopes or figures, odds are, it will be to us/others. He nor any of us, at the time of his writing it could -factually- say "It IS interesting" --to us or any one other than himself.

So, readers might ask Kel: did you intend to state as fact, unqualified, that: The video is interesting. ? The subtle implication being what, if one found it uninteresting (NonintEresting)?

I'd counter that, per fact, with, he could only say it was interesting to him (at that time/point). And thus that's what he should only express, seeking to reduce/eliminate non-factual communication. Where it seems reasonable enough to me here, that most realize the too typical result of allowing opinions/beliefs/subjective abstraction to be believed to be factual/actual (aka the state of mind that leads to The State as fact).

It seems to me, that the objective of E-Prime communication is to reduce confrontation. In the plane of, thought leads to action, and thought is strongly the stuff of language, language being the stuff of sentences, sentences of words. And it's language both conscious and unconscious/subconscious, no?

Some key ways of qualifying (some examples already noted) that which is subjective that work for me, are a.) using/including qualifying terms, and b.) keeping it personal "upfront", via including personal pronouns, and 3.) the use of the form of a question (rather than a statement, the latter tending to be too easily heard/taken as factual). No?

Thus, with Kel's specific, there's the likes of not taking the shortcut of omitting the qualifying "I" e.g. I found this (to be) interesting; or "I wonder if you'll find this interesting too?" or "I think you'll wanna check this out too!"

...all being relative to how crucial and to what degree one sees reducing opinions and emotions expressed in communication from being too easily taken as fact, of course --no? [bonus question: which came first, the Statist-speak or the speaking as Statists? To is, or not to is, that be the question...]

[another article including the topic, which I recommend, since I gleaned some nuggets from it, here]

[NonEntity]

(10-26-2011 11:17 AM)Kel Wrote:  The video linked below appears both relevant and interesting by my personal judgement.

The video linked below appears well placed when measured by relevance in accordance of subject matter.


Yay? Nay?

What video?

Anyone here familiar with Marshall Rosenberg's "NonViolent Communication?" (Known as N.V.C.) It also is a somewhat awkward formation of communication intended to facilitate more meaningful interchange between people.

This conversation about E-Prime just stimulated my mind to think of what the combination of E-Prime and N.V.C. might be like. EEEeeek!

The concept with N.V.C. is that one accepts responsibility for one's self. So instead of saying, "you pissed me off," you would say something like, "when you placed the open bottle of catsup upside down on my best suit I felt anger as this suit is important to me and not easily replaceable and now I won't be able to wear it to the party tomorrow and I really was looking forward to that."

Or some such. While appearing quite awkward, my experience with it is that it really does facilitate better understanding between people and in fact can result in better communication in a shorter time period, even though it seems to actually take longer (probably because it feels so awkward, at least at first.)

One of the things that is really interesting about N.V.C. is that it helps you to see that you are responsible for all of your feelings, not someone else. Someone else may do something which may trigger an emotional response in you, but they didn't cause that response, all they did was to trigger some need and or fear inside you which then set off the emotions you felt. The emotions are about your own internal crap, not about the other person.

- NonE

---

(10-26-2011 11:34 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  

(10-25-2011 07:31 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  It:

Kel Wrote:Found this to be interesting.

Okay, smarty pants. Let's see you put that in E-prime.
- NonE(prime)

Well, it seems to me, first, we're still experiencing a failure to communicate. What is "that" here?

And as the Smarty Pants, let me attempt to head that off: "that", for me, equals what Kel wishes --sincerely, genuinely --as opposed to flippantly, conveniently (selfishly?)-- to convey or express.

Hey, Eye,

I read your post, and I think I understood what you were attempting to say, and I must say that I think you are missing the core issue with E-Prime. {edit... GO HERE and I think it may clear it up for you} For example, most/many of your examples were simply different conjugations of the verb "to be." I first got turned on to E-prime back in the late 90s, and read the original author/creator's material on the concept. I highly recommend you delve more deeply into this material as I think you'll enjoy it.

Your point about Kel's finding something interesting is a great example. Just because something stimulates Kel's interest does not mean that it IS interesting. The interest is not inherent in the thing, which the word "is" implies, rather the interest derives from the intersection of the thing and Kel's perspectives and interests at the moment. See what I mean?

Korzybski? Or something like that... he's the guy who came up with the concept.

- NonE


BTW, He's the "the map is not the territory" guy! :-)

[eye2i2hear]

The link to the article I posted last references Rosenberg/NVC, actually. Kewel(to me). And from that, nudging back to E-Prime:

Quote:One reason for speaking or thinking in E-Prime stems from the assertion that using the verb "to be" results in identification and a sense of permanent, final, complete, sameness, which can lead to rigidity and stagnation of thinking. Such identification leads to dogmatic conclusions and generalizations, and to confusing the word with the thing. E-Prime, by eliminating "to be" verbs, forces the speaker to use active verbs, and changes what we say from a statement of "fact" to the description of a process or condition.

---

(10-26-2011 11:47 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  One of the things that is really interesting about N.V.C. is that ...

[NonEntity]

(10-26-2011 12:03 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  The link to the article I posted last references Rosenberg/NVC, actually. Kewel(to me). And from that, nudging back to E-Prime:

Quote:One reason for speaking or thinking in E-Prime stems from the assertion that using the verb "to be" results in identification and a sense of permanent, final, complete, sameness, which can lead to rigidity and stagnation of thinking. Such identification leads to dogmatic conclusions and generalizations, and to confusing the word with the thing. E-Prime, by eliminating "to be" verbs, forces the speaker to use active verbs, and changes what we say from a statement of "fact" to the description of a process or condition.

---

(10-26-2011 11:47 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  One of the things that is really interesting about N.V.C. is that ...

Oh for sure. I didn't claim to be doG, or even to attempt to pretend to impresonate doG! ;-)

- NonE

---

Eye2,

That is an excellent article you linked to. :-)

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

(10-26-2011 11:47 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  {edit... GO HERE and I think it may clear it up for you} ...
Korzybski? Or something like that... he's the guy who came up with the concept.

Ya gotta luv this (no? ok, I luv this!):

the guy in NonE's link Wrote:As a result of Korzybski's warnings, movements such as E-Prime developed to try to purge all uses of the term "is." Curiously, though, Korzybski did not practice anything that remotely resembles E-Prime. He used "is" in its varied meanings throughout S&S and in his later writings and speeches.

Come on, now, eye's got to have The Authority!!!!

[NonEntity]

(10-26-2011 12:25 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Ya gotta luv this (no? ok, I luv this!):

the guy in NonE's link Wrote:As a result of Korzybski's warnings, movements such as E-Prime developed to try to purge all uses of the term "is." Curiously, though, Korzybski did not practice anything that remotely resembles E-Prime. He used "is" in its varied meanings throughout S&S and in his later writings and speeches.

Come on, now, eye's got to have The Authority!!!!

You win. I'll make sure that the next time Larken's in Georgia he bestows the crown of Authority on you.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

Just be sure it's the Crown Royal bestowed and we're all good~

(if it's Royal Crown, then Moonpie required)

[zonsb]

(10-26-2011 11:34 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  It seems to me, that the objective of E-Prime communication is to reduce confrontation. In the plane of, thought leads to action, and thought is strongly the stuff of language, language being the stuff of sentences, sentences of words. And it's language both conscious and unconscious/subconscious, no?

The subconscious issue with regards to E-prime is most interesting to me. The subconscious does pattern recognition but it's factually based. When I say to myself I'm angry with Bob, the subconscious equates that I'm angry, and, I'm with Bob. Not that I'm angry at Bob. I think inputting e-prime formatted information to the subconscious may be the most effective way to use the subconscious to assist the conscious mind with planning and succeeding with tasks and achieving larger goals that include multiple tasks.

--

[Kel]

Everytime I make a post it seems to snowball into a debate I've no hand/stake in, with you people ("you people"?!)....



I'll just keep to myself from now on....:rolleyes: